tv_control

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates valid actions and hints that volume values follow the device's own range, but it says nothing about permissions, state side effects, or failure behavior for write-like actions such as power and playback.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The category constraint is front-loaded, and the per-category action lists are terse lines that each carry information. No filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For an annotation-free control tool the description is nearly sufficient, but the guidance it omits (how it relates to sibling TV/playback tools and side-effect expectations) leaves a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description does real work by supplying the allowed category values and the action vocabulary per category. The 'value' parameter is only loosely explained ('device's own range'), which keeps this from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Control) and resource (TV), then enumerates the four categories and the actions each supports, so the agent knows exactly what the tool handles. It does not explicitly set itself apart from siblings like tv_status, play, or playback_status, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the category list suggests this is the tool for TV actions, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over tv_status (read-only) or play/playback_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.